Salary cap in League 1 and 2 confirmed

Thanks for that, wasn't sure. We'll just have to hope Wednesday get relegated this season then, good job they're on -12 already

 

If I was a greedy ******* owner of a championship club who has a lot of young players who aren't quite good enough for the championship id be begging the EFL to relegate my club tonight.

League 1 is a great place to be if you're an owner wanting to earn some cash. Unearth a few gems, sell them and oh dear I'm not allowed to reinvest the money In the club. I'll just take it home then. Its a right gravy train.

5he alternative of course is that championship (and premier League) clubs will offer peanuts to league 1 clubs for their best players as even just £5k a week is a huge jump for them and the league 1 club isn't allowed to match it. As as been explained to me many times on here, once a player has had an offer that he likes from elsewhere you have to sell him for whatever offer comes in.

 

Pros:
Literally the only pro I can think of I guess is to stop teams spending money they don't have, they want to eliminate point deductions and things like that.

Cons:
Won't be hard for other teams outside of league one and two to offer higher wages.
It widens the gap even further between Premiership, Championship and the lower leagues.
Football is a world sport, you can't impose a salary cap and expect it to make anything equal. This isn't like the NFL. There are other countries, other leagues, relegation/promotion is a factor etc.
How dare anyone dictate how a club should spend its own money, like seriously.
An "even playing field" isn't a good thing if everyone is brought down to the lowest level. I'd like Barnsley to be on par with Manchester United, but if you made Manchester United a lower budget championship team then somehow that's not as magical is it?

 

This might herald the return of really good player manager- they will be outside the cap you could expect / manipulate I suspect. Watch it happen....

 

29yr old decent player, with an experienced no2 with 20yrs on his back. Easy....who really knows who does what day to day

 

I’m fully in favour of FFP but this is too far in my opinion.

It’s mental that we could be relegated & allowed to keep players on 5 & 6k a week whilst Sunderland who’ve got 2-3 times more fans coming through the gates will only be able to pay a third of that.

All it will do will mean the same clubs keep bouncing between the championship & league one unless the relegated clubs are terribly run.

Any decent league one player will accept been on the bench every week in the championship instead of playing every week just for the money.

Surely there’s a better way. Enforce a strict wages to turnover %. Say 75% or something based on previous seasons crowds.

A player could opt to stay at Accrington rather than Sunderland because they can pay the same wages. That just seems bonkers. Sunderland could soon become the least attractive team in league one to play for due to their location. You’d imagine it could be similar with Hull as well. It would also have a serious impact on crowds if they can’t attract decent players anymore.

 

Just to provide some context around how restrictive this is, take a look at the available figures for 2018-19 vs the new £2.5m cap.

 

You've answered your own question. It's a closed house mate.

 

My guess is that the Russians are behind it all.

 

What's to stop a team paying over the odds for a player and their current team paying a percentage of their wages? Would that count towards the wage bill?

Eg buying club pay an extra half a million above the asking price and get the selling club to pay ten grand a week of the players wage for the time that remains on their current contract.

 

A salary cap is in theory correct but it should be set at a percentage of turnover in my view.

I really don’t get why a club who can get 30,000 through the gates regularly can’t pay more wages than a club averaging 5000.

I’m all for stopping teams paying what they can’t afford, and for making it a fair and level playing field, but this isn’t that.

This is making it nigh on impossible to get out of league one and become established, it punishes the clubs able to naturally generate more money than others (if we had gone down, and had gates of say 10k average, why should we spend on wages less than our turnover might allow?). At the same time, a club turning over 2million in league one could spend 125% of its turnover in wages and meet both the salary cap and ffp rules.

I know there’s no gate income for a bit and they’re protecting the smaller clubs, but this needs tweeking. Set it at a percentage of turnover, not an arbitrary figure, otherwise players will fall out of the game or be swallowed up by bigger clubs as squad members, the quality will drop like a fly - and it will encourage all the clubs to try and find legal ‘cheats’ or loopholes - this would be banned presumably but at a basic level, could players be on deals with lower basic wages and have supplementary contracts as advisors or directors of a multitude of local businesses that probably don’t exist yet and don’t actually really function at all? There will be something.

As I say, percentage of turnover. It isn’t unfair for a club that makes more money to be able to spend it. Not sure on the figures I’d use - the lower the level and so average turnover, the lower the average you’d think they’d need to use, maybe 60% league 2, 70% league one, 80 championship?

 

Always said it should be a % of turnover too, also said new buyers should pay a ‘bond’ that sits with the EFL to guarantee income for a set amount of time if needed like in the Wigan case.
Would have thought a % would make it incredibly easy to manage, where this option leaves a lot to be argued.
You mention directors etc, you would think the paragraph that says direct or indirect would cover it but it is still vague and leaves it open to interpretation.

 

I agree with your post and I thought there were some wage caps already in League One and Two based on a percent of turnover. This seems to me like the smaller clubs like Rochdale, Wimbledon etc have used COVID as a way to make themselves a lot more competitive against Sunderland, Portsmouth, Ipswich etc. There’s been a widening gap between the Championship and League One for years now and this will make it worse.

 

I understand the reasoning behind the decision but it effectively means that Leagues 1 and 2 just replace the youth/reserve leagues. I expect that, in time, lower league clubs will just be full of 16-23 year olds and anyone showing a modicum of talent will be snapped up.

Either that or Will Griggs house will be increasingly full of expensive Renaissance artwork and sculptures over the coming seasons.

 

PFA saying that any salary cap is illegal. Be interesting to see where this goes.


League One & Two clubs vote to introduce salary cap
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53696424

 

Pro’s for me is more incentive to develop players, and less clubs going bust.
PFA against , but they largely lost touch With reality ages ago

 

We need to make a proper fist of Championship now because this will fook us right up the ar53 if we go down.

I'm not a fare weather fan but i'd be done with football if our posibility of making the Premiership was made even more of a pipedream.

 

if the PFA are against it I think it’s largely a good idea.

 

This is another ruling that will not be enforceable. I hear other British sports have found ways around it including hiring family of players. Also im not sure of the intent. If the objective is to protect financial interest of clubs then why is the penalty served with a financial charge. Why not points? If the league cant police and manage FFP rules then what makes us think changing the rules will solve it.

 

I think you've just explained the rules of FFP above